Sunday, August 12, 2007

If politics and religion do not mix, what of politics and cults?

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has a problem. He is a Mormon. But he is not the first presidential candidate to discover that one’s choice of church may be a bar to the highest office. When the issue of the Catholicism of Senator John F Kennedy was emerging as an issue in his quest to become President of the United States of America, he made a speech, in which he said:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured - perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again - not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me - but what kind of America I believe in.

He was struggling to persuade the sceptical American people that the White House would not become an embassy of the Vatican, and neither would the US President do the Pope’s bidding, but, for a nation born out of the struggle for liberation from religious tyranny, his words frequently rang hollow. Yet the prejudices were overcome by his oratorical skill. At times, the communication of his dreams and visions were redolent of Martin Luther King Jnr:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute - where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote - where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference - and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

That speech was made in 1960, yet even in 2007 the land of the free does not permit all men to be equal. Of course, the inequalities are no longer based on race or gender, but they are manifest and legion when it comes to religion. Mr Romney is presently experiencing not dissimilar problems from those faced by Senator Kennedy. Then the issue was the Church of Rome, now it is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

But while Rome has a self-confessed salvific religio-political mission to redeem the world, the principal objection to the Mormons is their rejection of the Trinity (having abandoned polygamy a century ago). It says much for a nation when it places a distinctly theological issue over an acutely religio-political one. Many who object to him for his trinitarian views would be wise to acquaint themselves with certain aspects of church history, and with the contentions of Chalcedon in particular.

Largely through the radiant charisma and global profile of Pope John Paul II, Roman Catholicism has become a respectable religion the world over, but Mr Romney’s problem is that Mormons are perceived to be a cult. There is little authoritatively which distinguishes between the two: for many, ‘religion’ is simply a positive and respectable spiritual force, while ‘cult’ is a religion of which one does not approve. Belief systems tend to be considered cults when their practices are perceived to be harmful to their members, or when they stand in opposition to the widely-accepted beneficial interests of mainstream cultures and governments.

There are, of course, too many relativist considerations in the present age for terms like ‘harm’ and ‘beneficial’ to be expounded. Even the democratic primacy of ‘mainstream’ is undermined by the deference displayed to every fragmented religious minority interest, for fear of causing offence. In the final analysis, every cult is now a religion because no-one is perceived to have the political right or the spiritual authority to tell anyone else what they should or should not believe, or what they may and may not do. Liberty has become a deity.

This is the tragedy of postmodernity. One is now obliged to respect all religious beliefs, and revere every spirituality. If this is not extracted by statute, it is enforced by the zeitgeist. All men may not be equal, but all religions certainly are. Islamism is as ‘noble’ and ‘great’ as Roman Catholicism, which is just as worthy of respect as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and any and every other spiritual ‘-ism’ which emanates from the mind of man.

Cranmer, by the way, is content to adhere to the cult of an obscure Nazarene.

23 Comments:

This is the tragedy of postmodernity. One is now obliged to respect all religious beliefs, and revere every spirituality.

Only those practised by dark-skinned people or some other privileged minority.

If this is not extracted by statute, it is enforced by the zeitgeist. All men may not be equal, but all religions certainly are. Islamism is as ‘noble’ and ‘great’ as Roman Catholicism, which is just as worthy of respect as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, and any and every other spiritual ‘-ism’ which emanates from the mind of man.

Christianity is not worthy of respect to the modern liberal, who seeks, with malice aforethought, to exclude it and dilute its presence at every opportunity. See Rabbi Julia.

I know Mitt Romney so I judge him from my meetings with him. He struck me as more straightforward and reasonable than many of those around him; and he seemed more earnest.

How far he is a product of the Mormon Church and how far his personality is separate from the LDS I do not know. I have always seen the Mormons as bemusing because of their aversion to caffeine and their propensity to baptise the dead into LDS.

It is a question American voters will have to struggle with and the 60% that cannot find the ballot box can be Monday-morning quarterbacks

Their leader/s may claim a special, exclusive ministry, revelation or position of authority given by God.

They believe they are the only true church...

They use intimidation or psychological manipulation to keep members loyal to their ranks. This could be in the form of threats of dire calamity sent by God if they leave; certain death at Armageddon; being shunned by their family and friends etc. This is a vital part of the mind control process.

Members will be expected to give substantial financial support to the group...

There will be great emphasis on loyalty to the group and its teachings. The lives of members will be totally absorbed into the group's activities. They will have little or no time to think for themselves because of physical and emotional exhaustion. This is also a vital part of the mind control process.

There will be total control over almost all aspects of the private lives of members. Members will look to their leaders for guidance in everything they do.

Any dissent or questioning of the group's teachings is discouraged. Criticism in any form is seen as rebellion. There will be an emphasis on authority, unquestioning obedience and submission. This is vigilantly maintained.

Members are required to demonstrate their loyalty to the group in some way. They may be required to deliberately lie (heavenly deception/theocratic strategy) or give up their lives...

Attempts to leave or reveal embarrassing facts about the group may be met with threats. Some may have taken oaths of loyalty that involve their lives or have signed a "covenant" and feel threatened by this. Refugees of the group are usually faced with confrontations by other members with coercion to get them to return to the group.

I fear that nedsherry is correct, postmodernity has consistantly undermined Christianity at every opportunity primarily because we will not fight against it, yet it pretends to revere the faiths it cannot get away with undermining, like Islam. One wonders what exactly is nedsherry's ideology? An anti-liberal atheist?

I believe the single thing that gives a religious group cult status, above all other considerations ...is the ease with which you can leave, if you so wish. So, speaking of the Church of England, many things it may be, a cult - never.

Your Grace,Most believing Mormons are not certain themselves what Mormon Doctrine is. They don't know their own history. They don't have to...all they have to "know" is that "it's true."When asked about the controversial stuff, they will reply with, "...one day the Lord will explain this to us." and "...it does not pertain to your salvation."I commend the following web site to you:http://www.lds-mormon.com/bomquest.shtml

The brother of a late-Archbishop of Canterbury had some interesting thoughts on this matter....

For Ramsey probability is not related to a disembodied body of knowledge but is related to the knowledge that each individual possesses alone. Thus personal beliefs that are formulated by this individual knowledge govern probabilities leading to the notion of subjective probability.

and

Ramsey argued that the logical form of a belief determined its causal properties. The difference between the belief ‘not-p’ and the belief ‘p’ lies in their causal properties. Thus disbelieving ‘p’ and believing its negation have the same causal properties. They express, as Ramsey puts it, really the same attitude: “It seems to me that the equivalence between believing ‘not-p’ and disbelieving ‘p’ is to be defined in terms of causation, the two occurrences having in common many of their causes and many of their effects” (PP, p. 44). One of the advantages that Ramsey found in this theory is how it avoids the ontological proliferation of Russell’s theory; negative facts, for example, are not needed.

http://www.fil.lu.se/sahlin/ramsey/

Ramsey's epistemology would show knowledge of God to be predicated on individual knowledge rather than an objective probability to which people subscribe as subjects, as if in a classroom. There is as such no objective proof in that sense of the existence or non-existence of God but a subjective belief which is the probability each person assigns in terms of personal belief or non-belief.

One wonders what exactly is nedsherry's ideology? An anti-liberal atheist?

Agnostic more than atheist. Dawkins isn't good company.

For Ramsey probability is not related to a disembodied body of knowledge but is related to the knowledge that each individual possesses alone. Thus personal beliefs that are formulated by this individual knowledge govern probabilities leading to the notion of subjective probability.

Typical C of E: let's come down firmly and unequivocally on the fence.

Ramsey argued that the logical form of a belief determined its causal properties. The difference between the belief ‘not-p’ and the belief ‘p’ lies in their causal properties. Thus disbelieving ‘p’ and believing its negation have the same causal properties. They express, as Ramsey puts it, really the same attitude: “It seems to me that the equivalence between believing ‘not-p’ and disbelieving ‘p’ is to be defined in terms of causation, the two occurrences having in common many of their causes and many of their effects” (PP, p. 44). One of the advantages that Ramsey found in this theory is how it avoids the ontological proliferation of Russell’s theory; negative facts, for example, are not needed.

What convoluted, pretentious, er, spheres.

Thus disbelieving ‘p’ and believing its negation have the same causal properties.

Er, yes. That's because disbelieving 'p' and believing not-'p' are the same thing.

Ramsey's epistemology would show knowledge of God to be predicated on individual knowledge rather than an objective probability to which people subscribe as subjects, as if in a classroom. There is as such no objective proof in that sense of the existence or non-existence of God but a subjective belief which is the probability each person assigns in terms of personal belief or non-belief.

"Typical C of E: let's come down firmly and unequivocally on the fence"

What does the C of E have to do with it .....

The C of E sees the world in its own fluffy liberal image. It can never imagine that in this post-modern age there are still wolves in sheep's clothing and predatory principalities and powers.

From http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/relations.html

Other faithsThe Church of England, in partnership with other Christian churches, also seeks to build up good relations with people of other faith traditions, and to co-operate with them where possible in service to society. Recognising the significant changes which have led to religious plurality in our society, the General Synod as long ago as 1981 endorsed the Four Principles of Inter Faith Dialogue agreed ecumenically by the British Council of Churches:

1 Dialogue begins when people meet each other.2 Dialogue depends upon mutual understanding and mutual trust.3 Dialogue makes it possible to share in service to the community. 4 Dialogue becomes the medium of authentic witness.

(How wonderful! Thiese four noble truths will bring about the end of suspicion after 1400 years of interfaith misunderstanding which prevented us from seeing that we all serve the same society. )

The Church of England is also represented on the Inner Cities Religious Council, a body in the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions bringing together representatives of faith communities with a substantial presence in England's inner cities to work together with the Government in tackling the problems facing deprived urban areas.

(Simply marvellous! This will destroy the root cause of Jihad which are 1400 years of urban deprivation and bad transport. )

Across the country, a network of Inter Faith Advisers and contacts in each diocese provide specialist advice and encouragement for church leaders and members seeking to develop good relations with members of different faiths. Bishops often have a particularly important role to play alongside other religious leaders and ecumenical colleagues in speaking for the faith communities.

(Inshallah the faith communities will finally realise that the great thing they have in common is faith! Then no more problems!! Kumbaya!!! Oh Joy - let the Bishop of Carlisle lead the multifaith transgendered rain-making ceremony)

Funny I reference an article by Frank Ramsey, Mathematician and colleague of John Maynard Keynes, who died in 1930 and whose brother Michael, later became Archbishop of Canterbury.......and people veer off to unload their prejudices against the Church of England.

There is obviously a Pavlovian bell ringing for some of Your Grace's communicants occasioning salivation

Is it not inconsistent to post in support of separation of church and state in our former colonies and that they should accept a Roman Catholic or a Mormon as head of state, while supporting the continued establishment of one "cult" here in the UK and the law which does not allow a Roman Catholic to be our head of state? The standards you rightly apply to the USA should apply here as well.

"Many who object to him for his trinitarian views would be wise to acquaint themselves with certain aspects of church history, and with the contentions of Chalcedon in particular..."

History (and Chalcedon) demonstrates that despite fearsome attacks on the Church somehow she manages to escape the heresies and survive the heretics.

Distilling revelation into dogma is such a daunting task that the crucial reason the Church has not contradicted herself in 2,000 years is the guardianship of the Holy Spirit.

We can be guaranteed to be free from error, however otherwise dull of head or heart we are, if we accept the dogmatic teachings of the Church.

I make this point because I wondered if Cranmer was trying to suggest there is something noteworthy about the mess the Church was in around the time of the Council of Chalcedon. The Church is ALWAYS in dire trouble, and it is ALWAYS a man-defying miracle that she survives and grows, and that her dogmas--once formulated--remain upheld and uncontaminated by error.

We cannot blame people pre-Chalcedon for not knowing a pithy Trinitarian formula. God does not expect us to be theological geniuses. But as for those of us post-Chalcedon it is a different matter. It does not take a genius to receive truth from his Mother.

Not inconsistent at all. The concern, and the manifest point of the post, which you appear to have missed, is the distinction which must be drawn between religions and cults which have political agendas, and religio-cults which are not remotely concerned with worldy government. While the Church of Rome belongs manifestly to the former, the Church of the Latter Day Saints may be said to belong more to the latter. Religio-political agendas are potentially malignant; religions concerned more with personal spirituality tend to be politically benign.

Madison's original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ''The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' 1 The language was altered in the House to read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.'' 2 In the Senate, the section adopted read: ''Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion,

The phrase you use "separation of church and state" is nowhere in the US Constitution but is contained in a letter written by President Jefferson to Baptists in Danbury, CT in 1802 and therefore represents the viewpoint of the Deist he was - and his opposition to the Anglican Church taxes levied in Virginia and Massachusetts for the Established Church.

Since Jefferson was an admirer of the French Revolution and probably also a Freemason his Deism was probably quite apt

About His Grace:

Archbishop Cranmer takes as his inspiration the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: ‘It’s interesting,’ he observes, ‘that nowadays politicians want to talk about moral issues, and bishops want to talk politics.’ It is the fusion of the two in public life, and the necessity for a wider understanding of their complex symbiosis, which leads His Grace to write on these very sensitive issues.

Cranmer's Law:

"It hath been found by experience that no matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”

Follow His Grace on

The cost of His Grace's conviction:

His Grace's bottom line:

Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse. Comments on articles are therefore unmoderated, but do not necessarily reflect the views of Cranmer. Comments that are off-topic, gratuitously offensive, libelous, or otherwise irritating, may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on any thread does not constitute their endorsement by Cranmer; it may simply be that he considers them to be intelligent and erudite contributions to religio-political discourse...or not.

The Anglican Communion has no peculiar thought, practice, creed or confession of its own. It has only the Catholic Faith of the ancient Catholic Church, as preserved in the Catholic Creeds and maintained in the Catholic and Apostolic constitution of Christ's Church from the beginning.Dr Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1945-1961

British Conservatism's greatest:

The epithet of 'great' can be applied only to those who were defining leaders who successfully articulated and embodied the Conservatism of their age. They combined in their personal styles, priorities and policies, as Edmund Burke would say, 'a disposition to preserve' with an 'ability to improve'.

I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.Margaret Thatcher, Baroness Thatcher LG, OM, PC, FRS.(Prime Minister 1979-1990)

We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton, OM, PC.(Prime Minister 1957-1963)

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.Sir Winston Churchill, KG, OM, CH, TD, FRS, PC (Can).(Prime Minister 1940-1945, 1951-1955)

I am not struck so much by the diversity of testimony as by the many-sidedness of truth.Stanley Baldwin, 1st Earl Baldwin of Bewdley, KG, PC.(Prime Minister 1923-1924, 1924-1929, 1935-1937)

If you believe the doctors, nothing is wholesome; if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent; if you believe the military, nothing is safe.Robert Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, KG, GCVO, PC.(Prime Minister 1885-1886, 1886-1892, 1895-1902)

I am a Conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a Radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few.Benjamin Disraeli KG, PC, FRS, Earl of Beaconsfield.(Prime Minister 1868, 1874-1880)

Public opinion is a compound of folly, weakness, prejudice, wrong feeling, right feeling, obstinacy, and newspaper paragraphs.Sir Robert Peel, Bt.(Prime Minister 1834-1835, 1841-1846)

I consider the right of election as a public trust, granted not for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good.Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool.(Prime Minister 1812-1827)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.The Rt Hon. William Pitt, the Younger.(Prime Minister 1783-1801, 1804-1806)